1. Introduction

I understand that WDC is required to provide G&T site allocations but do not accept that they should be allowed in locations where other more conventional forms of development would not be allowed

Many, particularly long term residents of a locality will fear that its character and environment will inevitably be be harmed by developments involving others who will have no commensurate commitment to that locality. Whilst the Council apparently has an obligation to provide travellers with facilities, the objective of peaceful and integrated co-existence is unrealistic.

Affordability for whom? Warwickshire, like other counties, has plenty of well-managed, privately operated camp sites with the kinds of facilities described. If any mobile family does not use such facilities it is presumably because it will not pay the rental charges, or because operators, for their own reasons, are reluctant to provide space. If the Council is to fill the gap in the market for such facilities it must ensure that the costs of site maintenance and supervision are adequately met through a combination of fair charges and if necessary, subsidies.

Whatever the case for providing facilities for genuinely mobile travellers, the case for permanent pitches is much harder to justify.

We write with concern over the prospective site options for Gypsy & Traveller sites in the Bishops Tachbrook area.

We attended the recent consultation meeting held in Bishops Tachbrook to be advised of the sites currently being considered for the Gypsy community to settle.

The booklet handed out to the residents and other interested parties, was indeed a beautifully illustrated booklet, but sadly, was nothing more to us than a piece of marketing. The parking of caravan in a secluded country park, with hills in the background, beautiful grand house in the foreground, this looked like a quiet holiday destination.

How long would it be before the site was littered with debris, faeces, used sanitary products, barking dogs, trucks, vans and lorries, to name a few.

As we understand it, the gypsy community are not in favour of internal toilet facilities but by tradition choose to deficate outside the caravan. One concerned person told me last week, that they could not walk in their usual route any longer because of the sights that greet them from the gypsies who had recently vacated the area they had illegally parked.

* Who will be paying for the mass clean up of these areas when the gypsies decide to vacate?
* How will the paying of Council Tax be monitored?
* What security measures will be in place for the local community, who feel insecure as a result of these sites?
* From other sites, in other local council areas, what has been the affect of the gypsies, i.e. cleanliness of the site and surrounding areas, contribution to the running of the site, security etc?
* Has there been an increase of crime rates in other occupied areas, and if so, how has this been addressed?
* How many people, not caravans, are the council proposing to allocate to each plot?
* How will this be monitored and policed to avoid overcrowding?
* How will the traveller sites affect local house prices in the Bishops Tachbrook area?
* How have house prices been affected in other areas to date where gypsies/travellers live?
* Has potential increases in house insurance been taken into consideration?
* Why should residents have to pay for these increased costs when they are not in favour of the sites
* What will the visual impact be on the village of Bishops Tachbrook?
* How will the Gypsy & Traveller sites affect the local services?
* What about the impact on the infrastructure locally?
* Schooling - what about the availability of school places and standard of education for the gypsy community?
* Gypsies and travellers do not tend to stay in one place and put down roots for lengthy periods of time, and this can be disruptive for the local community, who do pay their taxes, take pride in where they reside, and work hard to pay for what they have

These are just a few concerns that we have and concerns that we feel will have a potential impact on the community

Please give these the consideration they deserve as our lives and those of our families are directly affected by the location of these sites

I write to lodge an objection in the most vigorous terms to any proposal to place a gypsy and traveller site within the environs of Baginton Village, Warwickshire.


But first, having had access to the booklet produced about the Local Plan by Warwick District Council, dated June 2013, I feel I must comment concerning the portrayal of gypsy and traveller sites within the booklet, in particular the photographs included. I have personally been onto several gypsy and traveller sites, both private and local authority, both legal and illegal, and have seen many others through TV and other media. I have NEVER seen one even vaguely similar to the photographs within your booklet - there are no dogs, no gas canisters, no children, no vehicles, no toilet blocks or other facilities, no pushchairs, no bikes, no rubbish disposal facility - indeed no rubbish - the grass is tended, there is no tarmac and no sign of how the gypsies/travellers earn their living.

To me, this calls into question the integrity of Warwick District Council and the whole project, there clearly is NOT a policy of HONESTY in dealing with or promoting these uncomfortable issues. Of course, if you can tell me at what gypsy and traveller site the photographs were taken and when, I would have an opportunity of viewing this exemplary site myself and might well have to apologise for stating that I doubt the integrity of the project. I very much doubt that will occur, but would be interested in the comments of the producers of the booklet.



Back to my objections:


Baginton is a small semi rural village, sitting on the Warwickshire/West Midlands border which already this year has been bombarded with the Gateway planning scheme which was approved despite the numerous objections and concerns of villagers. This is far too much development in a short period of time for a small community.


The map showing the area proposed is many acres - is this the reality of what is proposed or another inaccuracy? Presuming it is accurate, then the size will result in is becoming a dominant feature within the village, vastly increasing the size of the village population with no corresponding increased supply of amenities or funding.


It would heavily affect several businesses in the village - in particular the village pubs which due to the proximity of at least one of them to the site would run the risk of becoming the 'local' of the gypsies/travellers - I'm very afraid that however it was packaged it would result in the villagers being uncomfortable in the pub and ultimately reducing their use of it.


The schools within the catchment area for Baginton children are already over subscribed and local children often unable to attend the school of their first choice. It would be wholly inappropriate and unfair to allocate a number of places to children of travellers who may or may not be present to attend the school, when there are local full time residents who require those permanent places.


There is believed to be a link between crime and gypsy & traveller sites - which would adversely affect the local community, but even more the perception of crime due to the site will drive down the value and desirability of property in the area - something which is already affected by the aforementioned Gateway scheme.


To place this type of scheme within the heart of a small community will result in seriously strained community relations - gypsies and travellers are notorious for their lack of engagement outside of their own community and there is no reason to expect this to change - and the quality of life for both residents at the proposed site and the current village inhabitants will be seriously detrimentally affected.


Finally, it is apparent from the map of the whole county that the majority of the proposed sites are at the far reaches of the county - and it is clear that other counties agree with this strategy (ie Siskin Drive traveller site is on the West Midlands/ Warwickshire border) so anywhere on the edge of a county is disproportionally disadvantaged in this issue. Is there a reason for this strategy? Surely sites should be spread equally around the counties - and hence the country - taking into account the location of neighbouring counties' sites rather than clustering them on the edges of the county - very close to the ones on the neighbouring county. Siskin Drive traveller site (owned by West Midlands) is within two miles of Baginton village - which means we are already affected to a certain extent by a gypsy/traveller community - surely a more equal geographic spread would benefit the gypsy/ traveller community, which is after all, the community you are seeking to support in this plan. A site NOT within two miles of an existing site (regardless of the owning district council) would be far more appropriate.

I have been dissappointed at the signs (quite literally at times) which have expressed some local opposition to the proposed gypsy traveller site. I do hope that Warwick District Council will fulfill their obligations not only with reference to national guidance for the provision of this community but also to wider Equalities legislation.

I understand that legislation of this nature exists to ensure access to services for all communities and this includes gypsies and travellers; and incorporates appropriate consultation with all parties, including the gypsies and travellers themselves, as to the most appropriate means by which suitable provision can be made available.

This provides the basis for public bodies to demonstrate leadership in promoting 'acceptance of difference' and the celebration of the contribution to our society which different communities can bring to the benefit of our local towns and villages. I hope that an approach of this nature will be demonstrated as due process unfolds for consideration of this proposal.

Dear Sirs/Madam

My husband and I are strongly against having these sites in or around the town on Warwick.

When the travelling/gypsy community stay on the racecourse they fight in the local pubs, leave debris and generally disrespect the local community. Offer inferior work at inflated prices to the local older community and we believe that the vast majority of Warwick residents heave a sigh of relief when they leave the town each year.

If they want to have permanent sites then they should be paying taxes on monies earned and pay property taxes to pay for the services the council will be expected to provide as well as rent for the site.

However, even with that we do not wish to promote the site availability due to the unpleasant and disrespectful attitude that we have encountered on previous occasions.

Having seen your draft local plan I want register my strong objection both to the concept and the detail of the plan.
From my perspective as a resident of over thirty years this is how I see the plan:

* The residents of South Leamington/Whitnash have endured a process of more or less constant upheaval over the last few years. Traffic has become ridiculous at times and despite previous promises of how traffic would be redirected by signage ( pious hope) the net result for me is a massive increase in traffic, inconvenience and noise pollution. Further development on the lines proposed cannot help but make this much worse.

* I can see no good reason why there is a need for so much new residential development. Local resources are already overstretched, and I feel most residents (ie those who pay your wages) do not want this massive extension of residential development. Why is bigger better?

* Your previous record of development is at best dubious e.g. Warwick Gates. When it was proposed it was quite clear that more local resources/facilities were needed but nothing except one so called multi-purpose hall/ church. It is also quite noticeable how the infrastructure is already deteriorating. The social housing is badly maintained (as a simple example just walk down a road with social housing on one side and see how the cheap, shoddy, poorly specified, barely painted window frames are in a terrible state on that side). Footpaths and in particular cycle paths are badly cracked and on occasion near impassable due to totally unsuitable (ie cheap for developers) planting. They appear to have been poorly constructed and clearly the bill for ongoing maintenance (if they are maintained) will be massive.

* As for the proposed traveller site - well words fail me. I used to regularly walk over the Harbury Lane and Golf Course area ; no more. If I treated the area the way travellers, and some associates, have done I'm sure I wouldn't be treated so charitably by authority. Apart from forced entry onto the playing fields their dogs are a menace, they have left the area in a disgusting state with things like soiled nappies all over the place, not to mention the joyriding over the playing fields and cricket square

* I pay council tax for services provide by local councils and in general terms for the tax paid I expect in return some enhancement in quality of life. Whilst I appreciate that my singular needs may not always be in line with the councils idea of the communal good, from my perspective this plan as drafted does nothing except reduce quality of life for existing local residents. This seems to be almost taxation without representation.

* More greenfield development is, in general, ridiculous. Clearly in real strategic terms we need less people not more houses. Last year for the first time in many years the country had to import large quantities of wheat to keep up bread supply. With increase in population and more importantly buying power of countries like China/India and the possibility of more erratic weather patterns this situation will gradually get worse and in a relatively few years could be serious. Food security really is important as evidenced by recent changes in DEFRA strategy. If every local council proposed similar plans where might we be. Strategic planning for future food security should ensure no greenfield development except in very particular circumstances - this is clearly not one. But perhaps it is too much to expect a local council to think in really strategic terms.

I can think of more reasons why I object to the draft plan but the above points give the flavour of my rationale for objecting in detail and in general. Any councillor or local MP who voiced support for this plan, rest assured would never get my vote again.

Another highly contentious factor for any Traveller community and peaceful integration could be the loss of local jobs.
The proposed site would result in the loss of 40 local jobs and an anticipated loss £2m to the local business community (shops pubs and restaurants used by visitors to the established Warwickshire Exhibition centre). The centre had 33000 visitors in 2012
There would be no opportunities for travellers to live and work in the same location thereby omitting travel to work journeys. No gas,drains or electricity and poor broadband. As has already been emphasised car travel would be necessary in all aspects of life on this site.
In conclusion the proposed site GT02 is not at all conducive with the aims of the local plan and can only be seen as a situation that would not only put travellers and their families at risk but also not give them the opportunities of integration and lifestyle this plan purports to support.

SEE ATTACHED

During this consultation period and in particular at the Barford public meeting, WDC has singularly failed to address public fear and community concerns relating to the siting of gypsy and traveller sites in terms of crime and anti-social behaviour. Direct questions have been asked of the relevant officers and no comfort or intelligent comment has been received in return. In Barford as a case in point the response went something like "We dont know, it is difficult for us because we have not done this before". In consultation publications we have even been treated to images of touring caravans instead of traveller sites.

Quite rightly, people are at pains to avoid prejudicial comment. It has no place in public consultation nor decision making, however our community's fear is real and has not been addressed. Fear, be it based upon fact or upon misunderstanding is corrosive and damaging and has a tangible impact on residential amenity. Fear will not go away unless WDC tackles it head on and provides us with concrete and compelling evidence to allay it.

I have already mentioned that open and direct requests to WDC in public meetings have not delivered any information to allay our fears (be they based on fact or perception). It is unfortunate that at exactly the same time, our community fears have been strengthened following the occupation of land outside the village for a week by a group of travellers. During that occupation our fears about antisocial behaviour were strengthened by the total disregard shown by the travellers to property. The site was left in a disgraceful state when they left. Waste of every kind was left strewn including in a neighbouring field that had been used as a communal toilet. The community's fears about vehicle crime were strengthened when uninsured vehicles were identified by the police. Our community's fears of crime were strengthened when several individuals were taken into custody relating to the theft of fuel.

The effects of fear on a community, be they based upon fact, perception or misunderstanding should not be underestimated. Where sites are proposed close to existing settlements I urge WDC to tackle head on the real fears of those communities. Either communicate the issues openly and honestly and discuss suggested approaches remedies and solutions, or provide tangible evidence that the fears are misguided.

see attached

Thank you for the e-mail, unfortunately I'm unable to attend.
However I'd like to raise one point as I think you are not helping your cause.
The photos used on the brochure of the proposed Gypsy and Travellers sites are I suggest a misrepresentation of the truth.
The caravans are touring vans and not year round residential vans used by the majority of Gypsy and Travellers.
The photos failed to show any of the towing trucks, pickups, transits or the wear and tear to the land that are part and parcel of such sites.
May be you would like to comment on this at the meeting.

I write to lodge an objection in the most vigorous terms to any
proposal toplace a gypsy and traveller site within the environs of Baginton
Village, Warwickshire.

But first, having had access to the booklet produced about the Local
Plan by Warwick District Council, dated June 2013, I feel I must comment
concerning the portrayal of gypsy and traveller sites within the booklet, in
particular the photographs included. I have personally been onto several gypsy and
traveller sites, both private and local authority, both legal and illegal, and
have seen many others through TV and other media. I have NEVER seen one even
vaguely similar to the photographs within your booklet - there are no dogs, no
gas canisters, no children, no vehicles, no toilet blocks or other facilities, no pushchairs, no bikes, no rubbish disposal facility - indeed no rubbish
- the grass is tended, there is no tarmac and no sign of how the gypsies/travellers earn their living.
To me, this calls into question the integrity of Warwick District
Council and the whole project, there clearly is NOT a policy of HONESTY in dealing
with or promoting these uncomfortable issues. Of course, if you can tell me at
what gypsy and traveller site the photographs were taken and when, I would
have an opportunity of viewing this exemplary site myself and might well have
to apologise for stating that I doubt the integrity of the project. I
very much doubt that will occur, but would be interested in the comments of the
producers of the booklet.

Back to my objections:

Baginton is a small semi rural village, sitting on the Warwickshire/West
Midlands border which already this year has been bombarded with the
Gateway planning scheme which was approved despite the numerous objections and
concerns of villagers. This is far too much development in a short period of
time for a small community.

The map showing the area proposed is many acres - is this the reality
of what is proposed or another inaccuracy? Presuming it is accurate, then the
size will result in is becoming a dominant feature within the village, vastly
increasing the size of the village population with no corresponding increased
supply of amenities or funding.

It would heavily affect several businesses in the village - in
particular the village pubs which due to the proximity of at least one of them to the
site would run the risk of becoming the 'local' of the gypsies/travellers -
I'm very afraid that however it was packaged it would result in the villagers
being uncomfortable in the pub and ultimately reducing their use of it.

The schools within the catchment area for Baginton children are
already over subscribed and local children often unable to attend the school of
their first choice. It would be wholly inappropriate and unfair to allocate a
number of places to children of travellers who may or may not be present to
attend the school, when there are local full time residents who require those
permanent places.

There is believed to be a link between crime and gypsy & traveller
sites -which would adversely affect the local community, but even more the
perception of crime due to the site will drive down the value and desirability of
property
in the area - something which is already affected by the aforementioned
Gateway scheme.

To place this type of scheme within the heart of a small community
will result in seriously strained community relations - gypsies and travellers are
notorious for their lack of engagement outside of their own community and there
is no reason to expect this to change - and the quality of life for both
residents at the proposed site and the current village inhabitants will be seriously
detrimentally affected.

Finally, it is apparent from the map of the whole county that the
majority of the proposed sites are at the far reaches of the county - and it is
clear that other counties agree with this strategy (ie Siskin Drive traveller site
is on the West Midlands/ Warwickshire border) so anywhere on the edge of a
county is
disproportionally disadvantaged in this issue. Is there a reason for
this strategy? Surely sites should be spread equally around the counties -
and hence the country - taking into account the location of neighbouring
counties' sites rather than clustering them on the edges of the county - very
close to the ones on the neighbouring county. Siskin Drive traveller site (owned
by West Midlands) is within two miles of Baginton village - which means we are
already affected to a certain extent by a gypsy/traveller community - surely a
more equal geographic spread would benefit the gypsy/ traveller community,
which is after all, the community you are seeking to support in this plan. A
site NOT within two miles of an existing site (regardless of the owning district
council) would be far more appropriate.

I have severe reservations particularly over the proposed housing and also the Gypsy and Traveller site. My main concern is where will the children go to school. There are no doctors and the bus route...
although just about adequate for the size of the village is not a regular service.
In my opinion Baginton is a village and for some reason the local planner seem to think it is ok to throw more and more proposals without considering the environment ... size of the area... and the amenities that are here at the present time.

I am also horrified to hear that a local... small and hardworking company... Smiths Nurseries is expected to give up part of their land so that travellers can take over what is not theres to take!

Dear Sir or Madam

I have now had the opportunity to read the document in detail. I would like to raise the following questions.

- My first question relates to the images contained within the gypsy and travellers document, and I would be grateful if you would indicate which gypsy or traveller site they relate to?

- The proposed 'south side' development provides additional infrastructure including two primary schools and a secondary school, together with significant investment in an extensive highway infrastructure. Given the significant improvements to the infrastructure, why are the potential gypsy and traveller sites not being considered within the same overall plan. It seems we currently have a local plan for housing and a local plan for gypsies and travellers. I would be grateful if you could explain the rationale, as to why are we developing infrastructure on one hand, whilst at the same time placing significant demand on small villages such as Harbury where the existing infrastructures cannot cope?

- The presentation provided by WDC, states that according to the National Policy Planning Framework it requires plans to be used that are evident based.
Please indicate where the evidence supporting your local plan can be found, for:
- each site is to have between 5-15 pitches
- Each pitch needs 500sq/m
- Each site needs storage connected with employment
- Each pitch needs space for a travelling caravan

- I am looking for particular evidence to support the statement 'Sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area'. How has this been evidenced for the currently proposed sites?

It is my opinion that the current plans do not meet the criteria defined by the National Policy Planning Framework. I am looking to receive detailed evidence to suggest otherwise. The current document is nothing more than a glossy (expensive) marketing document, and does not form the basis of a rational consultation document.

see attached

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to make my objections to the Gypsy and Traveller Site (G&TS) options clear.
It is clear that when considering G&TS's the following must be considered:
Convenient access to a GP surgery, school and public transport
In 2007, 2.7% of children of Gypsy/Romany origin and 8.4 % of traveller children of Irish heritage achieved 5 or more A* to C grades or equivalent exams including English and Mathematics in England compared to a national average of 45.4%. 8% of Gypsy and Traveller mothers have experienced the death of a child compared to less than 1% of the settled community. This could put a major strain on the already overworked education and medical facilities already available in the area.
The Catholic Primary in Whitnash, St Josephs' has had to turn away Catholics with siblings already at the school as it has such a high application rate. Is the council going to supply additional funds to help support these children's needs? Given that the parents of many of these children are unable to read & write themselves they are not in a position to help children with their own learning and this identifies yet another pressure point. As an adult not being able to read & write seriously narrows down the type of work you would be able to apply for, there are limited employers within in the village of Bishops Tachbrook therefore there is no immediate local economy for them to join with.
Avoiding areas with a high risk of flooding
Field on the corner of Mallory Road, Banbury Road floods on each side whenever there is a significant rainfall. Sites GT05, GT06, GT09 and GT10 are all prone to flooding.
Provision of utilities
Who would be expected to provide this? Sites GT05, GT06, GT09 and GT10 do not have adequate provision of utilities such as sewerage, drainage, gas and water.
Safe access to the road network and provision for parking, turning and servicing on site
Sites GT05,GT06, GT09 and GT10 are all on very major roads with no means of pedestrian access. There are no bus routes and they are all fast moving roads.
Avoiding areas where there is the potential for noise and other disturbance
Banbury Road is the main road off the M40 for people travelling from both the North and the South. GT05, GT06, GT09 and GT10 are all bordering the M40 meaning that these sites will be very noisy for occupants. GT05 is in extremely close proximity to residents of Bishops Tachbrook and so any noise from this site would have a major effect on current residents.
Avoiding areas where there could be adverse impact on important features of the natural and historic environment
St Chads church in Bishops Tachbrook has many historical features. It is mentioned in the Domesday Book. GT05 and GT09 are both situated on the approach to Bishops Tachbrook and would be the first visual sight that visitors would see of the village.
Sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area.
It is difficult to think of any area at all that would meet this criteria. The character of the area around GT05, GT09 and GT10 is agricultural farm land. I fail to see how a G&TS would integrate into this landscape without harming the character of the area.
Promotes peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and local community
I would suggest this is highly unlikely due to the level of local disagreement with the proposed sites, in particular GT05, GT09 and GT10. I have concerns over the level of noise that any sites may incur, both from the inhabitants and also the local community expressing their objections. Local residents have discussed various methods of protest if these plans are to go ahead. Various residents have offered financial assistance regarding legal advice. The press and local MP's have been engaged and shown their support.
Avoids placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services
Will additional funding be provided to the village school to support with the proposed number of children likely to attend? If not will a new school be built to support in this area? Will this cause a change in the catchment areas for the school? It would be unfair for tax paying residents to be moved out of the catchment area to accommodate these new developments.
The school in Bishops Tachbrook is single form entry and is already oversubscribed. G&TS of 5,10 or 15 are likely to provide homes for 10,20 or 30 children. A small school which is always at capacity is unlikely to be able to provide the infrastructure required to support the needs of the proposed sites. The school does not have the resource to support children that have received very little if any formal education. They will struggle to integrate into the local school environment.
The school also relies on the parent teacher working relationship meaning that parents support the school by giving up their time to help teach and read with pupils. It is known that 81% of Gypsy and Traveller children's parents are illiterate. This will mean no support for the school. It will also mean that these children will require even more support from existing parents. The extra support that these children will need will put the current children at a disadvantage. The school is simply not equipped to deal with the needs of these children.
There are already concerns that the secondary schools in the area are oversubscribed and that there is not adequate provision for the current population of the parish. Any additional strain on these numbers will only make the situation worse.
There is a grade 1 listed church and a sports and social club built through local fund raising. There is a small local shop, a hairdresser and one public house. That is it.
Reflects the extent to which traditional lifestyles (whereby some travellers live and work from the same location thereby omitting many travel to work journeys) can contribute to sustainability
I would suggest that it is a small minority of Gypsy and Travellers that live and work from the same location. I would be interested to see the evidence to show how a Gypsy and Traveller site can support local sustainability in this area.
Specific sites
GT05, GT09- Vehicle access is onto a very busy main road, with vehicles travelling at speed. To introduce caravans and mobile homes turning into the site would be dangerous. Additional traffic at the junction of Mallory Road & Banbury Road would put too much strain on an already busy junction onto a road where cars are travelling at speed, because of the north and southbound approaches to junction 13 of the M40. This is not an easy junction to get out of especially if you have to move slowly due to pulling a trailer or caravan.
Given the proximity of 50mph roads next to this site what are the provisions for the safety and security of both people & animals? For instance a horse on the Banbury Road especially a loose one could end in fatalities.
The potential visual impact would be devastating on the approach to the Historical Warwick town and could discourage visitors and tourists. There are listed buildings on this site in need of protection. The proposed location is not in an area that can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area which is stipulated as a Site Requirement within the WDC Consultation Document. It would be the first thing that people see when travelling into the village from the M40
GT06 - Very remote from main centres and no means of pedestrian access
GT10 - Close to the Guide Dogs for the Blind National Breeding Centre. The risk of disease from any unvaccinated animals belonging to Gypsies and Travellers could be devastating. Given the proximity of 50mph roads next to this site what are the provisions for the safety and security of both people & animals? For instance a horse on the Banbury Road especially a loose one could end in fatalities. As could loose dogs.
Vehicle access is onto a very busy main road, with vehicles travelling at speed. To introduce caravans and mobile homes turning into the site would be dangerous.
The proposed location is not in an area that can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area which is stipulated as a Site Requirement within the WDC Consultation Document.
GT15 - site located on the banks of the Tachbrook. There could be a chance of contamination, given that the proposed site may be used as a place of work. Europa Way is an already congested road and adding further traffic to this mix could be devastating.
Sites GT05, GT06, GT09 and GT10 are currently homes to many forms of farm and wildlife animals. They are also working farm land.
Other considerations
6 out of the 20 sites have been proposed around the small unique village of Bishops Tachbrook.
Are the sites identified in and around Bishops Tachbrook too remote from the main infrastructure of Leamington Spa or Warwick to be suitable for this type of development?
On behalf of Warwick District Council, Salford University has determined that there is a requirement for 25 pitches initially expanding to 31. Why the need for so many propsed sites then?
Who will monitor the sites. It is my understanding that the sites will be operated by Gypsy and Travellers and not Warwick District Council. If this is the case how can concerns such as noise pollution land pollution and overcrowding be controlled?
Recommendations state that the size of each site must be between 5 and 15 pitches but does not specify how many people can populate this sites. What plans have been put in place to ensure that what happened at Dale Farm does not happen again. This was where a legitimate site expanded?
What about the effect on house prices in the general area around these sites?
What will be the visual impact on Bishops Tachbrook village and surrounding area. Will it have an impact on tourism in the area?
All proposed sites are on busy roads where it would be a danger for any children to wait for transport to school.
Why are 15 of the proposed sites in the south of Warwick & Leamington? The small village of Bishops Tachbrook has 6 of these proposals within a mile of it, 3 are on its immediate doorstep. Potentially all of these sites could be approved and the very nature of our community and how the approach to our village would look would be irrevocably changed. The effect on Bishops Tachbrook would be devastating to our way of life. This is not acceptable nor a reasonable request for the council to make.
There is no statement from the Gypsy Council of Great Britain or any other organising body on behalf of the Gypsy & Traveller community, within your brochure/document, that they wish to join our community in Warwickshire or anywhere else. Perhaps this is because they have no desire to permanently live here? What evidence does the council have that the Gypsy & Traveller community wish to use these sites as a permanently settled site with a fixed maximum number of 15 Pitches? You also do not state how many people are able to live within a pitch or who is responsible for the site. Due diligence has not taken place here. I appreciate that you state the Regional Spatial Strategy & commissioned Salford University have produced a report but you have failed to put any meaningful back up data into this document . Therefore I have to question the validity of the study as you have not put it in the information you are handing out. Where is the proof that so many sites are needed? Much needed data is missing here & the council are remiss in leaving it out.
You also state that the Gypsy & Traveller Accommodation Assessment shows a need for 31 pitches, 25 within the first five years & a further 6-8 transit pitches over the Plan period. Yet the brochure you have produced is only showing 19 of these. Why are you not identifying where all these sites will potentially be? Are you planning to use these larger identified areas to put up multiple sites? Please be clear & honest!
Sites GT05, GT06, GT09, GT10 are all next to each other meaning that of all these sites are successful there would be a huge Gypsy encampment in a small area.
The images you are using on your front cover, page 3 & page 4 are clearly stock images of holiday camping sites. They are not permanent sites and they are certainly not Gypsy & Traveller sites. Why is the council not using real images from existing successful sites to give an honest & truthful photographic representation of how these sites will look?
Proposals
Has the area next to the police site on the west side of Europa Way in between GT06 and GT15 been considered. This could have access onto one of 4 roads and would have a high Police presence.
A further alternative site and one that is a much more suitable at addressing the issues that are set out in Section 4 of the consultation document is on the opposite side of Stratford Road, Warwick to Aylesford School. This site is located within walking distance of medical, educational and recreational facilities.
It is located on a straight section of road with good sight lines and a 40 mph speed limit. It is served by bus routes and has wide pedestrian footpaths. This site is also set back from the road so would provide some protection from any negative visual impact.
Other comments
The instructions for this plan are very unclear. I have been advised that a separate letter needs to be submitted for each proposed site but I can not see anywhere that this is mentioned for email responses, this is unclear. If that is the case I have grave concerns that this consultation has not achieved its legal goal of "improving the efficiency, transparency and public involvement in large-scale projects or laws and policies" as people do not know how to respond in the correct manner.
I request to know the name of the authorised Gypsy site shown in your brochure.
Whilst I appreciate that WDC are under instruction to provide sites I would suggest that the proposed sites around the Bishops Tachbrook area are in the wrong places. This community is already stretched to capacity. I fail to see how the G &T could contribute to our small community.

Dear sirs,

I feel the need to email my comments regarding recent consultations and the local plans for development and travellor sites within the Warwick area.
I have massive reservations to both the plans and have listed them below.
I hope that I am in time to make my objections heard within the consultation period.
I would like to comment that we were not informed properly, and only found out about these activities by doing research and talking to others in the local community. Having heard that wheely bins had flyers left on them (we don't have a wheely bin), local radio and supermarkets used as tools (we work long hours and are at work when this must have happened, I must admit I am very disappointed by the councils actions.
I do understand the needs and government requirements but wonder if all consequences have been taken into consideration, Warwick is a small chocolate box town which tourists flock to and local businesses need.

Local development plan
Over 6000 dwellings planned for construction

1- pollution
This area is already measured as above levels of pollution that are acceptable for townships, adding to the number of homes and cars will only increase this unacceptable level. This in turn increases the risks of asthma and other ailments in the young and frail. I would also like to point out that at least 20% of people who die from lung cancer have never smoked, a statistic that should not be ignored when planning to massively increase areas of population.

2 - road infrastructure
The road system around this area cannot sustain the number of vehicles that use the roads. Traffic build up, congestion and long ques are something that we all struggle with. It can often take 45 minutes to drive the few miles from Warwick to Leamington. This is also affecting properties and how stable they are structurally. The M40 junctions near Tachbrook and out to Gaydon already have long ques on the hard shoulder in the mornings where people have to wait hoping that nothing will happen to them whilst other drivers rocket past them at 70 miles an hour.
Surely this will also have an impact on local businesses, as they rely on people passing through for trade, and using the current road systems, I understand that plans to change traffic flows could mean a threat to our small beautiful town. Having had a car written off whilst it was parked outside my home, it is a worry to me that more cars will only mean more risk of damage, and worse.

3 - flood impact
This area does have problems with surface water collection, not technically flooding, but major issues are often seen. Surely new building areas will only increase these problems as there will be less natural land for water to discourse into.

4 - sewer systems
Can the current sewer system take the amount of new homes proposed? Considering that the water board don't have accurate plans for the sewer systems I wonder how this will be reported against and updated.

5 - entertainment for young people
We already have problems with vandalism (especially cars and during holiday periods) in the area and with an increase in homes, families and teenagers it seems only logical that without enterntainments to keep them occupied this will quite possibly increase. I wonder how many times my car will be keyed, bonnet jumped on, wing mirror smashed off, washer jet caps stolen again in the future. I don't have infinite funds to keep repairing damage caused, and would like to see some proper actions made to decrease these.

Travellor sites

1 - access to GP's, schools & public transport
The current population struggles with access to see GP's, and it takes over two weeks to have a scheduled appointment with a doctor or nurse unless you take the tact of it being urgent, an increase in people in the area will only make this worse.
Local schools are already too large, and are struggling with the numbers of children needing places, how can this be managed effectively?

2 - avoiding flood areas
Flood or surface water problems, as we do have surface water issues, which are not recorded and reported against. Making it a little inaccurate to use only a flood report to go on.

3 - noise and disturbance
Wherever there are groups of people there will be noise disturbance.

4 - undue pressure on local infrastructure
With all the activities planned it is clear that this will have an impact on an already fragile infrastructure.

5 - integration in local landscapes
Having seen how a site is left on television program's, I don't feel I understand how this is possible without proper management of sites, which I understand will not happen.

I know not a valid reason for complaint but it was discussed at a consultation meeting that council tax would be required to be paid, but I don't understand how this wil be collected, rates also fall into this.
I would also like to know who will fund the proposed utility blocks.
Could you advise what numbers of sites are required in adjoining wards, as it seems our green belt land percentage is massive and I do wonder if this has been considered.

I hope these reasons can be taken into consideration as being genuine and relevant concerns.

see attached

see attached

see-attached

It is with regret and total disbelief that I find myself writing to you to complain about the above proposed development.

What on earth are you thinking of? We are a small village set in Green Belt land, already destined to be decimated and dominated by the Gateway development (I will copy you in on a letter soon to be sent to our MP regarding manipulation of planning committee members,which resulted in a dubious scheme being passed!). There is already a Gypsy/Traveller camp sited at Siskin Drive, on the perimeter of Baginton, which I may add bears NO resemblance whatsoever to the photograph of the proposed site depicted in the booklet available via WDC. If you drive past Siskin Roads camp, you will see that it is full of 4 wheel drive vehicles and vans, rubbish, children and dogs. Not the 'haven' depicted in your booklet!

The size of the proposed camp on the map, actually looks larger that the size of Baginton village, which would mean their community taking over the existing Baginton community. We have a limited local bus service, our children have to be transported to 'out of village' schools plus there are no medical facilities. The extra number of people who would end up living in a camp that size would put an enormous strain on local facilities resulting in, at the very least, extra sewage and refuse collection services having to be initiated.

And lastly, the proposed site already houses a thriving local business which has been a large part of Baginton for over 60 years. When the Gateway Development mentions 'potential' local employment, what about the fact that there are already many people employed at Smiths Nursery, who could have their livelihood jeopardised by the arrival of yet another unwanted, new development. None of these new proposals will enhance the lives of the people of Baginton, living in this beautiful Green Belt area. Instead it is just another nail in the coffin of rural communities.

It beggars belief that this site has been chosen over numerous other Brown Belt land sites which are more appropriate in size and position for this type of development.

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see-attached